1. Study 1 Corinthians 11:3-16. In his comments about church practice, what seems to be the problem and what head adornment for women is Paul recommending?

The problem appears that Corinthian women were wearing their hair loose, and this understanding is based on the following:

1. "Akatakalyptos," the Greek word in 1 Corinthians 11:5 describing the problem, is the same term used in the Septuagint Leviticus 13:45, which describes how a leper's hair was to be worn: "hang unloosed."

2. A term somewhat related to "akatakalyptos", "apokalyptō", is found in Numbers 5:18, which described that woman suspected of adultery had to wear her hair loosely. Loose and unbound hair was considered shameful.

3. During Paul's time, it was customary for respectable women to wear their hair bound in a bun. Married women or daughters wore head coverings as a sign of submitting themselves under the authority of their husbands or fathers. Prostitutes refused to wear head coverings as a sign that they were not subject to a husband and in rejection of the authority of man.

4. Because there is no evidence that full veiling existed during Paul's time, the problem cannot refer to "veiling."

While the type of head covering is not clear, Paul recommends that women be adorned in a particular way, possibly using a shawl or hood.

1. The Greek verb, "katakalyptō", found three times in 1 Corinthians 11:6-7, and its related cognate form, found in 1 Corinthians 11:5 and 13, unequivocally means "to cover" or "to hide."

2. The same verb expression is found in the Septuagint Esther 6:12 and extrabiblical literature (Plutarch, 46-120 AD) and it refers to a garment head covering.

3. Extrabiblical literature contemporary of Paul, uses an expression, which is the negative adjective of the verb "katakalyptō", to specifically refer to the uncovering of the head.

2. Break up the syntax of 1 Corinthians 11:3-15. What do you see? Why does Paul want women to have a head covering?

3) But I want you to understand that

4) Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying

disgraces his head.

5) But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying

disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved.

6) For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off;

but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved,
let her cover her head.

7) For a man ought not to have his head covered,
since he is the image and glory of God;
but the woman is the glory of man.

8) For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9) for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake.

10) Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.
11) However, in the Lord, neither is woman independent of man, nor is man independent of woman.
12) For as the woman originates from the man, so also the man has his birth through the woman; and all things originate from God.

13) Judge for yourselves: is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?

14) Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him,
15) but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

Verse 13 is the fourth reason why women should not discard their adornment and cultural symbol of submission. Paul's argument is based on man's natural instincts, which uses cues, such as hair length, to distinguish between the sexes. Just as hair length provides the visible physical means that differentiate between the sexes, so does head covering provide the visible symbolic means that differentiate between the sexes.

16) But if one is inclined to be contentious, we have no other practice, nor have the churches of God.

Verse 16 is the fifth and last reason why women should not discard their adornment and cultural symbol of submission. In his last argument, Paul speaks from the perspective of the apostles and he other churches. To those "contentious" Corinthian women who refuse their head coverings in defiance of male headship in the name of freedom, no apostle or church condones their practice of discarding their head coverings.

In today's culture, the issue of male headship remains a contentious controversy and is seen as a barrier to socio-economic advancement. Paul's letter to the Corinthians was an admonishment about church practice. In the first century, women, who participate in prayer and prophecy during worship, should have a head covering to acknowledge male leadership and authority. How that is conveyed today is debatable. Inasmuch as the culture today does not view the absence of a covering as evidence of being a loose woman, in view of this biblical principle, many wonder how a woman should demonstrate that she is under the submission of her husband. Some see the contemporary equivalent of this in attitude and demeanor; others suggest possibly the wedding ring.

However, the controversy is seen in today's forms of church practice. Many churches practice one of two extremes. At one extreme is the church that does not recognize male headship and fully support a woman's right to fully participate in public worship just as a man would. At the other extreme is the church that does recognize male headship but denies a woman' right to prayer and prophecy during public worship.

Paul did not advocate either extreme. He exhorted female submission to male leadership and authority in public worship while maintaining equal worth and dignity of the sexes. And while making his case, his arguments emphasized the physical and symbolic distinctions between the sexes.